Is The Necessity For Energy Payable With Lives?

By Sumaiyya Anas

When pondering upon the topic of nuclear energy in India, there are several facts that must be taken into consideration. Human rights in this nation has never been spectacular – perhaps the opposite even, as a country that places the eighty-third, in the report provided by Freedom in the World 2020, among nations such as The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste and The Republic of Senegal. Additionally, it is the second most populous country and is said to soon take over the title from The People’s Republic of China, and yet approximately twenty-two percent of the population fall under the poverty line, without access to basic needs such as sustenance, shelter and electricity. Despite it being the third largest producer and consumer of electricity, more than thirty-two million homes are left in the dark, without access to power. Moreover, twenty-one out of the thirty most polluted cities in the world are situated here. It is thus, not quite difficult to comprehend why the Government would wish to utilise a readily available source of energy, namely nuclear power.

India, unlike other super-powers, is not signatory to many treaties regarding the safety and liability of nuclear power and power plants, as a nation that is not part of the Non-proliferation treaty. It chooses, instead, to make and partake in agreements and work under organisations of its own, such as the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority (NSRA), and occasionally answers to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This form of individuality, however, is not as empowering as it appears to be - it allows mistakes to be made and left uncorrected, despite their consequences.

The consequences take various forms, especially when the dangers of nuclear power plants are taken into consideration. Most of the plants in India, although located in weak seismic zones, are in coastal areas – they can withstand earthquakes, but probably not tsunamis. The obvious risk of exposure to radiation in the case of a disaster, natural or not, now comes into question. The liability of any nuclear accident lies with the operator according to the 2010 Act and the total liability is limited to 300 million Special Drawing Rights (SDR), which is approximately 450 billion United States Dollars (USD). This is most certainly not a sufficient amount of compensation – the why can be explained with the use of an example: if the power plant in Madras were to either face a catastrophic leak, or collapse in the face of an ‘act of God’, the possible number of victims would be more than 7 million. This is not an impossible prospect – the IAEA, in 2012, stated that although the reactors were ‘safe’, they still had room for improvement.

Not taking into consideration the repercussions and suffering that cannot be compensated by monetary payment, the consequences would be exceedingly vast and deep. The radiation would be intergenerational in nature, with the reimbursement only helping counter the effects in one. Amidst all the possibilities, it must always be remembered that the citizens of this nation do not have similar resources, be it medical or otherwise, that the citizens of other super-powers do. As a developing country that has an overly large population, the reservoir of wealth is unfairly distributed – with a lack of access to food, shelter and healthcare even on regular days, let alone during a fatal tragedy.

Here stems the question – is the necessity for energy so great that millions of lives must be risked merely so that a source can be harnessed? The answer is abundantly clear – no.

By Sumaiyya Anas